Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jamie writes "The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules."

Exactly. It's not exactly hard to download VLC from its home site. I now use VLC exclusively on my MacBook for playing video media - much easier for those of us living in Australia, with DVDs obtained from the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Apple, of course, offers you a limited number of times you can change the region of your DVD device, but VLC just ignores the region setting altogether. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid for legitimate media, the artists involved get their royalties, so Apple has no business standing in the way of my using said media.

But it's hard to install unless you know how to jailbreak your iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. I'd prefer that people buy a less locked-down device in the first place, but there isn't really an "Android pod touch" in the United States yet.

1) exactly what version of Android is it running (my guess 1.6) ?2) Can this version be upgraded ? (my Augen Tablet can't be upgraded)

So very well shell out your $149 + tax but you will be in a software dead end.

My advice to anyone who want (note the word wants..) and Android tablet is to wait until Android V3 ships and decently priced Capacitive Touch Screen Tables get released.The whole user experience will be a whole lot nicer and you will be $149 (+tax) better of

"Apple" doesn't offer you a limited number of region changes, that is part of the firmware of the DVD drive, and is common to *all* DVD drives to be in compliance with the specification. It's a brainless part of the spec, but it is in there at the behest of the movie industry. All of Apple's drives are standard off-the-shelf drives from a number of manufacturers - off the top of my head, they use Sony, Matashita (panasonic), NEC and Pioneer drives, among others.

VLC can attempt to ignore the region code, but it only works on some drives. Certain ones (usually the more modern Panasonic ones) are crippled further, preventing bypass of the region lock this way. My older Powerbook's drive can be bypassed with VLC, but my newer iMac's drive doesn't work like that and required that I patch it with an RPC-1 firmware.

In order to actually sell a DVD drive, it has to have this brainless region coding - the manufacturers who make them would face licensing consequences if they shipped region free drives. Apple itself does not make DVD drives, but they are affected by this downstream - they can't install custom firmwares that remove the restriction.

I live in the UK, and I am aware of this. It's shaky ground as far as the licensing goes - they are technically in breach and could be challenged.

Now, the argument against the lock is free trade, and could explain why no one has gone after this infringement yet. The other reason could be simple economics - DVDs in the UK are just as cheap as in the US now, meaning the incentive to import cheaper discs from other markets is much lower now than it used to be (remember when DVDs were well over £20 each,

It is exactly for the reason I stated in my post - tools like VLC and other such players attempt to read the disk as a DVD-ROM and bypass the region lock. This works for some drives and not others, as I stated.

One of my machines can do this (a Powerbook), the other one cannot do this (an iMac), and required a firmware upgrade. The only difference is the drive manufacturer.

Actually it's the distributor's rules that are depriving users of useful programs and it's Apple that is committing copyright infringement. If they want to create monopolistic app stores, it's not a copyright holder's job to cave into their desire. The user can be taught about this issue, news stories like these and user experiences losing apps (Apple has the controls to remove/add apps as per their will) create learning opportunities. Just like Amazon's example with the Swindle did.

Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.

Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.

The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices--not the GPL or the people enforcing it.

To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.

Those who submitted VLC to Apple are not in compliance with the license but Apple is also a distributor, so they are both infringing. But Apple is the focus of this/. thread, so I focus on Apple here.

The Apple App Store is not some organization where Apple can't determine what submitters have submitted and Apple somehow has no choice but to distribute everything that comes their way. Apple has no excuse like, say, a phone company selling service to a home where the phone company can't tell ahead of time

No, they don't. Because they didn't agree to it [the GNU GPL]. The app submitter agreed to it.

The GPL specifies conditions under which one may distribute/convey the covered work. The alternative to these conditions is the default of copyright law: you may not distribute the work at all. Therefore if one fails to comply with the terms of the (relevant version of the) GPL, one loses permission to distribute/convey the GPLd program. But don't take my word for it, read what Eben Moglen, copyright lawyer, longtime GPL enforcer, and now president/founder of the Software Freedom Law Center said about th [gnu.org]

The contract terms for developers of iOS software attempt to make this more restrictive than any other platform. Most of the other platforms wouldn't even dare to try this. A better way to fight it would be to support alternative app stores for iOS devices, where they don't have the problem. Let's not adopt a scorched earth policy here. What we want is freer devices, the problem seems to be freer devices do not even get made. They either do not have the marketshare, or the app stores do not get built.

I think you're being naive. Why would they do that when the App store is a huge success? Every handset maker out there is selling Android device, yet Apple is still holding its own quite nicely, with a single model from one company and one mobile provider, and that is soon to change in 2011, when they expand to Verizon, and open an even bigger market to Apple. You also misunderstand the motive for the App store. They make enough to break even with perhaps a tiny bit above board. The App Store was never about profit.

I predict that the rise of the Android OS is going to force Apple to open their phone to non-App Store apps.

Statements like this remind me of the 'Year of the Linux Desktop' claims. Linux, like Android, is an excellent piece of software, but you vastly overestimate the draw for 'open' to the typical end user. Hell Linux is free yet it has a tiny portion of the desktop OS. In other words, you can't give it away (well not in any significant numbers that is). A FOSS App Store might give slashdotters a nerd-gasm, but to an average Joe, it's just another gimmick without a 'must have' appeal considering the sheer number of apps they have to choose from. Ask someone on the street if they would rather use VLC because it's GPL and they would just look at you with a blank stare until you explain what GPL meant.

I have to wonder if part of the anti-Apple movement in here lately is simply because Apple, although they are a tech company, lives, eats, and breaths, without any input from the techie crowd. That's a total reversal from even 10 years ago where most family members always had someone they know who was PC savvy and helped with decisions like that. I think that tends to leave your typical geek a little miffed. 10 years ago, you had to know a geek to do something as complex as upgrading your OS, or backing up your software (some of the basic functionality that today's devices provide with no configuration needed).

Now anyone can buy a device, download some music, sync some videos, install any number a quarter of a million apps, backup their data, upgrade their OS, all without ever needing to ask the family geek for help.

You could just as easlily say that the GPL is incompatible with the App store as the other way round. The claim is that because the App store has some restrictions (e.g. you can only install on 5 devices per download) and the GPL doesn't allow any extra restictions, that this is Apple's fault. If the owners of VLC want it on the app store, they could easily re-license it under a more permissive license that would be compatible. There's loads of situations outside of the app store where a piece of software might be subject to 'extra' restrictions. I don't think this is a deliberate decision on Apple's part to remove GPL apps, it's more a clash of cultures that either side could fix, and when Apple are told by someone that a certain app is incompatible in license with the App Store, it's perfectly natural for them to remove it as the first action.

What makes VLC more specifically tied to the warez scene than any other video player?

When obnoxious teenage 1337 w4r3z d00dz upload poorly encoded video or video encoded with some retarded codec that almost no one uses the standard reply to "why won't this play?" is "Use VLC, it plays fine there." because VLC plays almost anything (and for those things that don't play in VLC there's always Mplayer).

Basically, the reason VLC is popular with downloaded content is because it tends to play a lot of formats that other software doesn't understand.

It's also much less bloated than WMP or iTunes, and it still plays nearly anything out of the box, which is why I use it. Startup time is important, and definitely a draw when it's less than 1/10th of the time of the other leading players.

While what you say is factually correct, the (implied) conclusion that this ties VLC somehow to piracy or the 'warez scene' is retarded.

To make a car analogy, you just said that Honda (VLC) was tied to the 'illegal street racing scene' (piracy) because their cars are favored by many illegal street racers (pirates). It's not the responsibility of Honda (VLC) if illegal street racers (pirates) recognize the superiority of their product (media player).

VLC isn't just about the fact that it plays the stuff that Apple talking heads like to dismiss. It's also a much easier to deal with. It's packaged in a much more user friendly manner and doesn't force clueless novices to try and track down plugins piecemeal or burden them with trying to figure out what plugins they even need.

It didn't have to be the VLC developers - it could have been anyone who posted it to the app store, because the GPL permits you to redistribute the software. It looks like it was a French company "Applidium" that posted it.

Alas, the restrictions placed on app store content by Apple are not compatible with the GPL ; those receiving the app cannot redistribute it and do not receive sources or an offer of sources (from Apple, who are the distributor - Applidium link to the the videolan.org git repository, which isn't necessarily where they host their source - presumably they tweak the sources for iOS but there's no sign of them offering those tweaks, even if that would satisfy the license which it doesn't - the distributor has to offer the sources).

Applidium have almost certainly benefited from getting their app store category link in front of the eyes of a lot more people who wanted VLC for their device.

Applidium may well be adhering to the license - you only have to distribute the changes you make to people receiving the software, so they may have sent the source for their iOS specific tweaks to VLC to Apple along with the binaries. But Apple are most certainly not adhering to the license, and Applidium shouldn't be blameless as they were almost certainly aware that Apple would breach the license as a result of them submitting the app.

There are good reasons to use one over the other, but I'm sorry, freedom has different definitions. GPL grants freedoms to end users that BSD does not. BSD grants rights to developers and distributors that GPL does not. It is not magically "more free".

No. Under GPL if I add something useful and extend the program, I have to also post those changes under GPL. I may not want to do that. BSD gives me the freedom to do as I wish. BSD is far more free than GPL.

Either something should be free or it should not. GPL simply pretends to be free while at the same time forcing you to adhere to a very specific philosophy.

You have myopia, selfishly looking at only one incremental step of the whole process, and ignoring what happens as a consequence.

If you publish under more a restrictive licence, then *I* have no longer have any options to republish. You've restricted *my* freedom, and the freedom of everyone else in the world. Your fork becomes a dead end (and possibly a trap luring people into vendor lock-in).

Your dead end allows nobody else to increase their freedom beyond the standard sheepish "if you don't like the lice

If you right something yourself, just yourself, you don't have to publish the source code under the GPL. You can publish it under BSD, or Apache, or a proprietary licence, or whatever.

If you want to take somebody else's code and do something with it (modify it, build something on top of it, etc.) they have the right to request you treat their code in the way that they wish. If they put it under GPL, it's because they want your code to be fed back into something useful for them. Seeing as you're benefiting from their hard work, you don't get ultimate control over it.

I've always hated the "what's more free" argument- I think it's pointless. If I had to say so, I'd say BSD is "more free", whatever that means. But ultimately, BSD is really useful for some things, GPL is really useful for others, and other licences are useful for other things entirely.

Both GPL & BSD are a lot more community-friendly than an old fashioned proprietary licence, and that's all that really matters to me. Stallman be damned.

I confess I've not read the GPL with an eye towards that exact question but I have read it and don't recall anything like that in it. As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile. But I don't see why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL. I can have the sources available both via the app istelf and online. DOes the GPL prevent me from using SSH or HTTS from _sending_ and _installing_ any code. No. so why should apple's encrypted conduit

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

In short, I think there are problems beyond DRM with GPL software being distributed t

Apple does not grant you the right to modify / distribute the VLC binary. Is that a problem in gplv2?

However, nothing is stopping (AFAIK) vlc from providing the exact iOS vlc source code and distributing that--in fact it should be required? Anybody can modify that source code, and distribute that source code. Anybody can NOT compile it and run it on their iPhone. That requires either jailbreak or $100/year. Is that a GPLv2 problem? I didn'

As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile

No, that is not what the GPL has ever required. It has required that you make the source code of GPL software available to anyone you distribute that software to, and that you distribute it under the same license, including any changes you make to the software that you distribute (assuming it is not your original work).

why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL.

The GPLv3 includes an anti-Tivoization clause, which basically requires that if GPL software is going to be locked down by a restriction system (DRM), the user has to be able to bypass/disable that restriction system so that they can enjoy the other benefits of the GPL, like the ability to modify the software. Since the iOS restriction system does not allow users to enjoy the benefits of the GPL (cannot modify code without paying Apple, cannot redistribute, etc.), it is incompatible with GPLv3.

you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.

Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.

You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides

When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.

So zip up the source files and drop them in the app package you submit to Apple. That's what id did with the wolf3d sources. Presto, source distributed along with every download from the App Store, now go sit in the corner with a nice big cup of STFU.

Since that alleged objection is so trivially dealt with, the FSF is taking the position that Section 6 of GPLv2 is incompatible with App Store distribution, since Apple limits the distribution

The latest VLC version 1.1.3 has the GPL version 2 licence. Although the GPLv3 has anti-DRM and anti-Tivo-ization measures, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the GPLv2 licence allow Apple to distribute the software in the App Store with DRM, as long as the also provide a copy of the source code?

You can't expect a company to make major changes to their online sales system to support 0.2% of the people that want to use it, even if you're IN that small minority. Be reasonable.

Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money? And the availability of free software on the store would devaluate the paid software on the s

Their [Apple's] obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it.

I have karma to burn, so I'm just going to say it: how is Apple expecting software distributed via their App Store to comply with App Store terms and conditions any more obstinate than expecting software distributed under the GPL to be distributed according to GPL conditions? Apple are under no obligation to carry software with what they consider inappropriate licensing on their store, any more than we are under any obligation to buy Apple hardware and apps from their store if we value the provisions of the GPL.

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit

Apple would have to allow anyone to run anything on the iPhone, which has security implications

Only under the definition of security that means, "The customer is the adversary, and the goal of the security system is to protect cash flow." This is admittedly a commonly used definition, intended to mislead people into thinking that these restriction systems are a good thing for them.

participation is entirely voluntary, involving purchase of an Apple device.

Voluntary until schools start handing out iPads and mandating that students use them. I doubt that there will be an exception to the restrictions for students who are required to use iPads.

So Apple *may* remove the VLC iPad app, because the people that own VLC tell Apple there's a license violation - knowing that in the past this means Apple will pull the app.

Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same action and expecting different results?

If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success. You need to keep things like VLC alive in the app store, so that users will be more tempted to use non-DRM downloads and consume them on modern computing devices.

But instead, the FSF is playing into the hands of the media companies by keeping things like VLC player out of the mainstream and attacking the only company with the same goals of ending DRM. Nice work FSF, this is seriously making me re-think my yearly donation...

Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same action and expecting different results?

So I take it you're not going to vote any more...

And you won't date because some time in the past you got dumped...

And you won't post on slashdot because it doesn't change anything...

Okay, seriously, the reason we try things over and over is because we HOPE that at some point, things will change. Other people will notice, take a stand, and progress is made - or at least we've met some new and interesting pe

This serves no purpose than to shove more OSS software out of the public's eye.

Yes, because the goal of the free software movement is to gain users at any expense, even if it means that those users do not actually enjoy any of the benefits of free licensing. It is easy to forget that, in fact, just having more people use this software is not the ultimate goal; the goal is for people to have the freedoms that are granted with free licenses like the GPL. Look at TiVo if you want to see how lots of people can use free software without being able to enjoy any of the benefits and freed

So, the non-article pretty much says "we complained about another GPL app in the store and rather than Apple change its entire licensing structure, it chose to remove the app in question and stop distributing it" - which is *exactly what the FSF were complaining about*.

* App is distributed on app store* FSF sees it is GPL* complains to Apple that it is not compatible with their licenses* Apple takes it down (or it is suggested that Apple will go this route - there hasn't been a decision on VLC yet, this article is just speculating on what Apple will do and condemning them for a decision they have not yet made)

Really, what is the argument here? There is no justification for righteous indignation when Apple does exactly what it is asked to do. You seriously expect them to change their licensing to be compatible with GPL software? What world are they living in? The App Store is a well known closed ecosystem. This article is nothing but a petulant rant that attempts to apportion blame about "denying great software" to people on iOS devices because of "Apple's restrictions" - when it is just as clear that the restrictions go both ways. The FSF likes to point out that the GPL is incompatible with the App Store (and there's a nice little non-sequitur paragraph at the end with wild speculation that the new app store in 10.7 will be enormously locked down).

This cuts both ways.

The GPL is a marvellous thing, but there are some places it just cannot go, by nature of its restrictions; restrictions put in place to provide more freedom, ironically. This article is nothing more than an attempt to force Apple to deny its own freedom to choose what licenses to use for the App Store - if they happen to be incompatible with the GPL, then tough beans. They have as much right to choose as anyone using the GPL does.

If the lack of wholly GPL software on iOS bothers enough customers, there are other smartphone platforms that are known for not having such a tightly controlled app ecosystem.

Today, a formal notification of copyright infringementwas sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player foriPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. VLC media player is free software licensedsolely under the terms of the open source GNU General Public License(a.k.a. GPL). Those terms are contradicted by the products usage rules ofthe AppStore through which Apple delivers applications to users of itsmobile devices.

What exactly is the problem, ie, how exactly is Apple infringing?

I read both the VLC article and the linked to post about GNU Go and I'm unclear how exactly this works. I believe the complaint being made is that Apple does not guarantee that any/all software will be made available (FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance [fsf.org]) on the App store.

I'm by no means a GPL expert, but I thought that the "distribution" terms (at least in v2) were about the source code, and I don't believe this is contra

The original announcement says nothing about DRM. Nor do I recall reading anywhere else about Apple requiring DRM be included in products sold via the App Store. To me this looks like the FSF is hijacking the issue of GPL vs. Apple license.

Nor do I recall reading anywhere else about Apple requiring DRM be included in products sold via the App Store

All the software distributed through the Apple App Store is subject to iOS DRM; the devices are built to prevent any code that Apple has not approved from running. That is the DRM we are talking about here.

There are a bunch of things wrong with this slashdot article and also with how the original VLC developers are handling this. It is easy to blame Apple for everything, but consider this:

* There are three parties here: The VLC Team that wrote the VLC code. The commercial iPhone developer Applidium, who turned VLC into an iPhone App. Apple, who is making the application available.

* Applidium submitted the application to the App Store. Apple approved the app. The VLC Team is sending a copyright infringement to Apple.

* VLC is licensed under the GPL2. If the GPL2 license is incompatible with the App Store then why have the developers of VLC for the iPhone (Applidium) submitted the app? They should never have done that in the first place. They are the ones to blame for uploading software that cannot exist on the App Store under its current terms.

* The application is currently on the store, which means Apple has approved it. So obviously from Apple's perspective there is no problem here.

* Apple has actually changed the rules to accomodate for GPL2 licensed software after the GNU Go debacle: if a proper license is already attached to the application then Apple does not enforce its own default EULA for apps. This change was made in June. A month after the GNU Go thing happened.

* Apple kicked out GNU Go because the FSF requested them to do that. People keep screaming that Apple removes all GPL software, but this is simply because people are telling Apple to do that. What else do you expect them to do?

* It is probably fair to assume that Apple will remove the software after the copyright infringement claims made by the VLC team. But this really has NOTHING to do with the GPL. This is simply how Apple reacts to these kind of allegations. They remove the software and let both parties know so that the parties (in this case VLC Team vs Applidium) can work out a deal or whatever.

Diplomacy has never been a strong point of the VLC team and because of this in the end will lose:

* End users will not be able to use VLC on their iPhones and iPads.* Applidium just wasted a huge amount of time on this project.* The VLC team will not have an opportunity to start a dialog with Apple to maybe relax the rules.* Apple will lose an interesting app on their store.

Not quite. One VLC developer sent a copyright infringement notice. It is not the VLC team doing it. In fact, when that developer wrote about it on his planet VLC blog, his blog was temporarily removed from planet VLC because the VLC team was concerned it might look like they were complaining to Apple, rather than it being one developer who had a problem with Apple. (I believe his blog has been restored, and the particular entry has a disclaimed on it making it clear that it is a person action of the developer, not an action of the whole team).

On their mailing list, a couple other developers agree with the first developer. and some other developers disagree because Apple changed its terms after the GNU Go incident and they think the new terms remove the conflict with GPL.

VLC developer says that the App store guidelines are incompatible with GPL licensing because of DRM

Apple may remove the app ("kick out the app")

VLC developer is complaining that Apple should change their policies instead.

VLC developer laments that Mac App Store may have DRM too

First of all, the developer is pointing out that the licensing may be incompatible and then complains that Apple is "kicking out GPL'ed" apps. I wouldn't describe it "kicking out" when the developer is kinda asking Apple to remove the app. What Apple isn't doing is changing their entire licensing agreements to suit this one developer.

Second, the developer is assuming that the Mac App store will have DRM. I've heard conflicting stories. Some say yes. Some say no. Anybody have access to the Apple Mac App Store Agreement that can shed some light on this.

Third, is it me or if the VLC developer has issues with the Mac App store, they can simply choose not to use it? Apple isn't removing the other ways to get an application (online, retail, etc); they are simply introducing a new one. Remember iOS devices are locked in that Apple has removed the ability for users to access the file system on the devices (without jailbreaking). With OS X, full access to the file system would make it extremely difficult to lock down the system. The Mac App store launches in 90 days so unless there are some major changes to Snow Leopard, it is highly unlikely. With Lion Apple might shift towards that direction but until that's down the road.

A different VLC developer disagrees and says the FSF is acting in bad faith and FUD [ycombinator.com].

Back in May, when the FSF complained about GNU Go on the App Store, the App Store was in fact definitely incompatible with GPL software. Apple makes copies and distributes them, so Apple needs permission of the copyright owner.

To get that permission under GPL, you have to obey GPL, including the part about not placing any additional restrictions on people you distribute copies to. Apple's end user terms of service placed many GPL-incompatible restrictions on the people Apple distributes to, so no GPL permission for Apple. If the developer owned all the GPL code in his application, then the act of submitting it to the store gives implicit (and there is probably something in the developer agreement that makes it explicit) permission to Apple to distribute. However, if the developer is using GPL code from other people, then there is a problem.

About a month after the FSF published their detailed explanation of the incompatibility, Apple changed the end user terms of service and the change appears to have removed the problem. It now says that if an app is covered by a EULA (and the GPL would count as a EULA, I believe) then that EULA governs. If there is no EULA, then Apple's default license governs, and it is Apple's default license that has the things the FSF objects to.

There was similar language before the June change, except that there was a set of "Usage Rules" and Apples terms states that those applied in addition to any EULA for the particular software, and it was the usage rules that contained the GPL-incomplatible stuff. With the June change, it seems that if the software has a EULA, the EULA is all that applies.

In order to redistribute GPL software, isn't Apple asked to spend more money? It has to have the ability to turn off and on the encryption, based on the license. It has to, to some degree, vet that the code is licensed correctly, or that non-GPL apps doesn't include GPLed elements. If they distribute anything that was not properly licensed, they have to mitigate the infringement, which, as a start, will be a recall off of the mobile devices and a refund, which is an ugly pr event, ask Amazon about "1984." What about the costs of hosting source code? Isn't a lot of GPL software offered at no charge, so there's not a lot of offsetting revenue for the extra bother? Licensing nuance is inside baseball. I doubt there would be significant additional demand for Apple devices for GPL code being allowed in the app store. Were Apple to allow GPL apps, Freedom as in Free adherents would still be cheesed off that Apple approves each app and/or that device owners cannot install any thing they want, except via unsupported self-modification

The developer chooses a license that suits them, and, right on, dig it, God bless 'em, and more power to them. Potential downstream users look at licenses and, if it doesn't make sense in the totality of what they are trying to do, either to pursue happiness or a dollar, they walk away from the code. Apple looks at GPL code and says, it's not worth the effort. They have the freedom to make that choice. Device buyers have the freedom to consider the intermediate's choices when they choose devices.

The FSF need to stop spreading FUD and outright lies about their own license.

RMS and his cohorts have done more to damage the general OSS movement with their radical FOSS brand than MSFT did through SCO.

They are attacking a company that has done more for open source than a lot of companies. Consider their work on Webkit which forms the base of not only Safari but webOS (formerly Palm and how HP), webkit browers on android, Nokia and Blackberry. They also released released Bonjour, Quicktime Streaming Server, the base of OS X (Darwin), CUPS as well as a bunch of contributions to various open source projects. What has RMS done lately other than complain?

VLC is under GPLv2. v2 is compatible with the terms of the Apple App Store and pretty much any other app store out there.GPLv3 is incompatible because it requires the right that receivers of GPLv3'ed code can not only freely modify it but also run it (this clause was written after TiVo used the Linux kernel in its boxes but had some checksum authentication method to ensure that users don't install modified kernels -- Linus Torvalds, btw, dislikes GPLv3 for that very reason)

Or rather, certain interpretations of GPLv2 say that it allows these restrictions. The wording is unclear and may be understood either way, and "spirit of the license" has no legal weight. GPLv3 merely fixes this ambiguity.

Or rather, certain interpretations of GPLv2 say that it allows these restrictions. The wording is unclear and may be understood either way, and "spirit of the license" has no legal weight. GPLv3 merely fixes this ambiguity.

If a license does not contain the wording, there is nothing to interpret out of it. If the GNU chooses to be assholes, everyone outside of their faithful will hate them for it. There is not such thing as a "SPIRIT" of a "LICENCE". It is not legislation but an agreement created by the original authors for third parties.

v2 is compatible with the terms of the Apple App Store and pretty much any other app store out there.

Not according to the FSF.
The Apple App Store conditions are inimical to terms in GPLv2, which states explicitly: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The Apple App Store explicitly sets such a restriction: "The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party." and requires that you accept this as a condition of using the App Store. It also lists various GPLv2-violating restrictions in its Usage Rules, such as limiting use of a product to five Apple-authorized devices.http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement [fsf.org]

The App Store TOS have changed many times since the FSF posted that, and that particular sentence no longer appears. So what is now the basis for VLC's actions?
You can see the current TOS at http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#SERVICE [apple.com]
It does contain clauses about "you may only use this app on a device you own" etc, which would appear to be against GPL. But it also says the App Store license only applies if the app doesn't have its own EULA. Seems to me (though IANAL) that in the case of a GP

All the provisions of the GPL apply to distributing exact and modified copies of the software.

If you make changes to GPL software but do not distribute it there is nothing that says you must provide your changes to anyone. ONLY if you distribute the software must you make provision for distributing the source of the version you distribute.

Distribution of copyrighted material requires permission of the copyright owner, with the notable exception of distributions that fall under the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine does not apply to the App Store.

Apple is making a copy of the software when they distribute it (see Apple Vs Pystar, where Apple's lawyers made precisely this argument and it was upheld). The software is governed by copyright and so they require permission from the copyright holder to do so. The GPL gives them permission to do so, as long as they abide by certain conditions (i.e. either distributing the source code, or providing an offer in writing to provide the source code for no more than a nominal fee on a medium commonly used for s

Developers may personally have a problem with DRM on content but the license does not - or it wouldn't be usable on projects like GPG.

The problem is that the terms of the GPL are not being met - the application cannot be redistributed by the recipients, and they are not receiving the sources for the application, or an offer to receive them from Apple. The distributor of software must meet these responsibilities - it's not sufficient to point to the ori

Is this the final proof that Apple is not compatible with (GPL'ed) OSS?I sincerely hope so, because then we can finally lose the fanboys and talk about more interesting stuff here.

And maybe for those occasions where somebody still has an urge to talk about Apple, we can change the icon into something borg-like, as we have for M$.

By the way... if only BSD had a GPL license...

I have a question for you. Do you enjoy using the internet? That TCP/IP that you are using is the ubiquitous "OPEN STANDARD" because the stack was originally released as BSD licensed code. Do you enjoy other OPEN standards? The majority of them exist because they the sample code was licensed as BSD or similar license. FOSS license do NOT encourage creation of OPEN STANDARDS and formats to the same degree as licenses like BSD. Licenses like BSD allow corporations to participate in development and collaborat